Helicopter down in East River, NYC
But they aren’t in a Twin Squirrel: why persist in going down this rabbit hole? It’s as bad as a well known contributor opining that single engine is safer than a twin, and totally irrelevant to the accident.
Understandably, the focus of this thread has been drawn to the harnessing of the passengers, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it played a major part in restricting their egress from the aircraft, with tragic consequences.
There are a couple of other aspects of the incident which seem to me to require further consideration though, none less so than the proposition that the fuel cut off could have ben accidentally operated by a passenger strap / harness of some sort.
I should say at the outset that whilst we have yet to have this proposition confirmed as the cause of the engine out, I am interested that nobody here has suggested that it is not possible or is even improbable. Certainly, with 5 PAX harnesses, and assorted camera and iphone tethers, there would be no shortage of snagging opportunity, and the photo reproduced earlier clearly highlights that there is much in the between seat area upon which to snag.
The fuel cut off lever would be just one of the potentially catastrophic options (and for those advocating twin engine aircraft as a mitigant, cutting off their fuel would have much the same outcome as here) : None of the Rotor brake, fuel flow, or collective would benefit from a sharp uncommanded tug in flight.
It is surely entirely foreseeable that something could snag a critical control in flight, and entirely reasonable that they should have been shielded or protected in some way?
Secondly, there is the question of the inherent risk of operations of this nature. Regardless of the quality of the safety briefings, these excursions were taking civilians into an inherently hostile terrain in the event of aircraft failure, with the most likely emergency landing venue being on water at a dangerously low temperature. The facts that they were tethered to the aircraft, and were not wearing immersion suits dramatically reduced their survival prospects from the level which they would otherwise have been at, which was itself by no means 100%.
Risk taking is unavoidable, and sometimes thrilling, but in this case it strikes me that the passengers could not have properly appreciated the risks they were taking, and the operators could.
There are a couple of other aspects of the incident which seem to me to require further consideration though, none less so than the proposition that the fuel cut off could have ben accidentally operated by a passenger strap / harness of some sort.
I should say at the outset that whilst we have yet to have this proposition confirmed as the cause of the engine out, I am interested that nobody here has suggested that it is not possible or is even improbable. Certainly, with 5 PAX harnesses, and assorted camera and iphone tethers, there would be no shortage of snagging opportunity, and the photo reproduced earlier clearly highlights that there is much in the between seat area upon which to snag.
The fuel cut off lever would be just one of the potentially catastrophic options (and for those advocating twin engine aircraft as a mitigant, cutting off their fuel would have much the same outcome as here) : None of the Rotor brake, fuel flow, or collective would benefit from a sharp uncommanded tug in flight.
It is surely entirely foreseeable that something could snag a critical control in flight, and entirely reasonable that they should have been shielded or protected in some way?
Secondly, there is the question of the inherent risk of operations of this nature. Regardless of the quality of the safety briefings, these excursions were taking civilians into an inherently hostile terrain in the event of aircraft failure, with the most likely emergency landing venue being on water at a dangerously low temperature. The facts that they were tethered to the aircraft, and were not wearing immersion suits dramatically reduced their survival prospects from the level which they would otherwise have been at, which was itself by no means 100%.
Risk taking is unavoidable, and sometimes thrilling, but in this case it strikes me that the passengers could not have properly appreciated the risks they were taking, and the operators could.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So nothing to do with twin engine, just "don't have passengers sitting in the front 95% of the time".
Actually - I routinely don't have unqualified passengers in the front seat when the duals are fitted. Shortly after getting my license I did but within a year I had experienced two "slight" interferences of the controls (I was not smart enough to learn from the first). I decided that passengers can't be relied upon to appreciate how easy it is for them to restrict the flight controls, let alone move the cyclic / collective / peddles or inadvertently move switches, no matter how comprehensively you brief them.
Now, I'm not running commercial sight-seeing or photographic trips, so the loss of 1 seat is not important to me.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are plenty of military-issue quick release vests, including some which, I assume, can be clipped to a tether. Pull the cord/ring and they fall to pieces and fall right off you—no straps remaining around the legs or such. Specifically designed to save your life when you are laden with a hundred pounds or more of gear and fall into the water. So the technology is there. The question is, do you want untrained civilians rooting around in an open-doored aircraft, who can with one inadvertent pull or hook literally launch themselves into space? Not me. Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 52
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, looking at the perspective that a door-off flight is not a regular flight, which does not use regular harness, it might be a enhanced briefing needed.
Same for my peers that are flying helicopter precision flying at low level. I was tighten up last year holding the buoy down and hanging out of the helicopter. I would have not had any chance to get off the heli in case of a emergency. I was locked into position tighten from my back. Until now I would never have questioned this. Now I certainly do.
At the competition no team had a quick release harness, except the pilot of course.
Swiss Helicopter Federation is giving this a second thought as of today.
Falcon......I am not convinced the Operator was conscious of the risk imposed by the harness set up.
Freedom is an amazing thing ain’t it!
We operate on the premise if it ain’t illegal it can be done.
Folks on the eastern side of the Saltwater Divide operate on the premise if it isn’t approved it can not be done.
From my military experience shooting a machine gun from a helicopter is a hoot....doing it without being shot at is a real hoot!
We operate on the premise if it ain’t illegal it can be done.
Folks on the eastern side of the Saltwater Divide operate on the premise if it isn’t approved it can not be done.
From my military experience shooting a machine gun from a helicopter is a hoot....doing it without being shot at is a real hoot!
Oh, and this is ok too? I give up.
Live out your Black Ops or First Person Shooter Video Game fantasies in the ONLY gunship helicopter shooting range in Las Vegas!
Experience an open-door low flight-helicopter tour over our 71-acre private shooting range through the Mojave Desert.
Choose a belt-fed M249S SAW or an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle.
Live out your Black Ops or First Person Shooter Video Game fantasies in the ONLY gunship helicopter shooting range in Las Vegas!
Experience an open-door low flight-helicopter tour over our 71-acre private shooting range through the Mojave Desert.
Choose a belt-fed M249S SAW or an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle.
There are plenty of military-issue quick release vests, including some which, I assume, can be clipped to a tether. Pull the cord/ring and they fall to pieces and fall right off you—no straps remaining around the legs or such. Specifically designed to save your life when you are laden with a hundred pounds or more of gear and fall into the water. So the technology is there. The question is, do you want untrained civilians rooting around in an open-doored aircraft, who can with one inadvertent pull or hook literally launch themselves into space? Not me. Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.
Everyone seems to have latched onto the harness issue in the absence of any evidence thus far. I think this may just be a red herring in that looking at video and pics of the 5 pax, they were all young and all healthy. If anyone is going to extricate themselves from a tight space, under pressure, atleast one of them is. But they didn't. So is the culprit 5 x harness designs?
I therefore shift my attention to:
Cold shock syndrome.
Loose articles in the cabin area - snagging hazards.
Both of these will provide enough time to determine the fatal outcome.
My final observation.
Having flown over 2000hrs on the twin squirrel (where critical switches/levers are in the cockpit roof), I never gave it a 2nd thought that NO-ONE who operates single squirrel's like this one or similar - where critical switches/levers are on the damn floor - actually decided it was wise to put a protective perspex shroud between the pax and the control(s). Mind blowing in retrospect to think there are operators out there who fly 'strangers' in their cab's yet don't consider the ergonomic layout to cater for their type of operation.
There is a word for this - it's called complacency (Never happened before, so won't happen in future brigade).
Safety Management requires: not reactive management, not pro-active management but predictive management if you are to stay ahead of the safety game. Go looking for problems and don't wait for them to come to you.
I therefore shift my attention to:
Cold shock syndrome.
Loose articles in the cabin area - snagging hazards.
Both of these will provide enough time to determine the fatal outcome.
My final observation.
Having flown over 2000hrs on the twin squirrel (where critical switches/levers are in the cockpit roof), I never gave it a 2nd thought that NO-ONE who operates single squirrel's like this one or similar - where critical switches/levers are on the damn floor - actually decided it was wise to put a protective perspex shroud between the pax and the control(s). Mind blowing in retrospect to think there are operators out there who fly 'strangers' in their cab's yet don't consider the ergonomic layout to cater for their type of operation.
There is a word for this - it's called complacency (Never happened before, so won't happen in future brigade).
Safety Management requires: not reactive management, not pro-active management but predictive management if you are to stay ahead of the safety game. Go looking for problems and don't wait for them to come to you.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown over 2000hrs on the twin squirrel (where critical switches/levers are in the cockpit roof), I never gave it a 2nd thought that NO-ONE who operates single squirrel's like this one or similar - where critical switches/levers are on the damn floor - actually decided it was wise to put a protective perspex shroud between the pax and the control(s). Mind blowing in retrospect to think there are operators out there who fly 'strangers' in their cab's yet don't consider the ergonomic layout to cater for their type of operation.
Good points. And along those lines:
Assume there was, in fact, a critical (fuel) control accidentally moved to the wrong position. How long before the pilot realizes this has happened? Can it be reset, and if so, how long does that take? Is a full engine restart needed, and how long does that take? In other words, one this occurs, is it unrecoverable unless at a high enough altitude?
The Harness was NOT designed for that.
The band-aid was to attach a small knive somewhere to the harness (did they even know where? Someone said that in another flight this was not even really shown - but I guess it doesn't matter). I doubt even with proper HUET plus an immersion suit they would have had the slightest chance with that harness.
On the other hand the pilot got out.
In a Squirrel with Pax upfront he was in the midst of the same chaos and in the same cold water and he still made it out. That's no coincidence.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, the focus on harness designs is irrelevant except for the lawyers at this point. The fix for this situation is simple. Ban tourist flights with people sitting in the door with legs dangling, so they need a harness at all. Give them a door-less flight while they're belted normally in their seats without a full harness, so quick egress is possible in the event of ditching or fire.
This entire situation is caused by the way they're offering to let people sit in the door frame during the flight. That just shouldn't be done unless someone has experience, and a proper harness and crew to monitor the situation (i.e. professional photo/film crew on assignment).
This entire situation is caused by the way they're offering to let people sit in the door frame during the flight. That just shouldn't be done unless someone has experience, and a proper harness and crew to monitor the situation (i.e. professional photo/film crew on assignment).
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://youtu.be/V7reFbsBESU
Here you can see exactly how the pax were strapped in...
from 0:39 onwards
Here you can see exactly how the pax were strapped in...
from 0:39 onwards
After seeing the restraint (a standard building construction fall safety harness) and the location of the tether (apparently a light chain) attachment point (hard against the rear cockpit bulkhead) I see my comments were quite unreasonable.
With four passengers in the rear seating area, the inversion and immersion of the helicopter would have made it all but impossible for them to cut the heavy harness in four places to effect escape.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: us
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few random thoughts:
Report listed that two of the passengers who died were full time employees of flynyon. While we don't know their job function yet, it's pretty telling that if they can't make it out then tourists didn't stand a chance.
the 40min NYC rescue video linked upthread seems unnecessarily complicated, and likely cost time: rescue and divers getting into position, driving into what appears to be a park, walking quite a ways, and standing there listening to teams and strategies being announced while the helicopter riders were drowning or giving in to shock/hypothermia. Looked like 50+ responders in the video. I may have overlooked this, but how many minutes after the crash before divers were in the water?
Report listed that two of the passengers who died were full time employees of flynyon. While we don't know their job function yet, it's pretty telling that if they can't make it out then tourists didn't stand a chance.
the 40min NYC rescue video linked upthread seems unnecessarily complicated, and likely cost time: rescue and divers getting into position, driving into what appears to be a park, walking quite a ways, and standing there listening to teams and strategies being announced while the helicopter riders were drowning or giving in to shock/hypothermia. Looked like 50+ responders in the video. I may have overlooked this, but how many minutes after the crash before divers were in the water?
Last edited by e7pilot; 14th Mar 2018 at 16:46.
Yes I agree, this practice of tourist flights with feet dangling out the cabin should be stopped. But it shouldn't stop there. These kinds of of harnesses should not be allowed anywhere close to a helicopter. In no circumstance.
Edit: If you can't trust people to safely deal with an emergency release and to fall out accidentally well that is then obviously a scenario that can't be done (would probably apply here). /Edit.
The comment from the participant of the Helicopter championships shows to me that there is a wider problem with these harnesses in the industry. When I read that I had pictures of a toppled but largely intact yet burning Robbie with a poor soul strapped to it running through my mind.
Last edited by henra; 14th Mar 2018 at 16:42.
So yes, it’s likely that a professional crew/outfit would not be met with such difficulties exiting from a helicopter. Of course other factors at play such as type of impact, consciousness, airframe/door/window deformation etc
Could a single fast launch team on standby with rescue knives, air tanks, and flotation devices have had a better outcome had they been there within 5min?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If operators continue to put tourists on any harness / monkey strap combinations there will likely be more fatalities.
If you are trained crew or professional camera operator (who has been trained to release your harness or hard point attachment point ) you will always have a better chance . . not perfect but better.
Tourists should not be on any system other than a seat belt or 4 point release they are familiar with.
This has now become obvious but at a high cost.
If you are trained crew or professional camera operator (who has been trained to release your harness or hard point attachment point ) you will always have a better chance . . not perfect but better.
Tourists should not be on any system other than a seat belt or 4 point release they are familiar with.
This has now become obvious but at a high cost.